I think we're at a point, no matter the platform, graphical fidelity is 100% on the developers, not hardware limitations

[Exellus]

In the past, such as with the Nintendo DS and earlier phone hardware, it was expected that certain games simply would never look great no matter who the developer was, simply because the hardware could only output so much.

I believe we are past that moment, and now at a place, that no matter what system your game releases on, it is not a challenge to make a "good looking" game. Low-polygon counts etc. have no reason to existing.

In the past you could blame such things on hardware limitations, but nowadays I think it's really up to what the creative teams are capable of, and how much effort they put into the game itself. The only limit is the game developers themselves.

Obviously for extremely high fidelity games, where there's tons of objects on screen simultaneously, yes there are still limitations at the upper end. But there is absolutely no excuse these days for any game to look like old DS games or even PS2 level graphics.

Is this an accurate sentiment?

TLDR: No more graphics like THIS:

 

[Aaron D.]

Graphics will always be held back by tech, budget and team size (hyper realism).

Also, low poly counts can be a successful atheistic choice (DUSK, Paratopic, etc).

 

[InspectaDekka]

It's always been that way though as far as I'm aware. Developers just need to really understand the system at hand to provide something that looks gorgeous. There's still some PS1/PS2/XBOX games that blow my mind.

 

[WinFonda]

I don't think that's accurate. There are plenty of limitations. Hardware, time, money. You name it.

 

[Deleted member 1413]

Title is probably gonna upset some people, but what I take from your post is that devs can make good looking games anywhere?
Guess that's true, but low poly/bad textures can still happen, especially if the game is large

 

[Cudpug]

The main limitation nowadays is file size, I'd say. There is absolutely no reason, enough time and resources permitting, you couldn't create a game that has fully explorable interiors for thousands upon thousands of houses etc., but consoles can barely accommodate games that are 100gig plus as is, so when games run into the terabytes it seems it's the hardware that's letting the team down, not the software.

 

[Gundam]

Nah. 100% on the lack of infinite money tho

 

[Platy]

4 Heroes of Light looks gorgeous on the DS, you are drunk, OP

 

[freakybj]

This has always been true though. If the console isn't capable then devs won't support it.

 

[Rodjer]

To make a good looking game nowadays you need skilled developers, a lot of developers, good tech and money.

Of course there are some exception like Hellblade, but if we take in account the big AAA+ games they all have big budget, good tech and skilled developers.

 

[Chrust]

I agree. GTA4 and GTA5 were on the same console. Totally different games.

Which is why I hate half gen updated consoles. (PS4 Pro/XB1X)

 

[FiXalaS]

The rate of great looking games definitely is higher this gen, way way higher, than previous gen.

Maybe its thanks to Unreal Engine 4?

 

[Kamiyouni]

As long as the animations are natural, the art style makes sense, and it doesn't chug like my aunt every Christmas, I don't care how the game looks.

 

[Zohar127]

Hardware will always be a limiting factor and the determination of whether or not a game "looks good" is purely subjective and always will be. Also the creators vision is always limited by hardware. Do you think Cyberpunk 2077 is a game that's going to be graphically perfect? Trust me. It won't be. I bet the framerate will dip and if you look at stuff closely enough you'll find low res textures and low poly models for simple objects. Is that because the developers didn't try hard enough or sucked at their jobs? No! It's because they're developing on hardware that barely surpasses the specifications of a low end laptop from 2013, and at the same time they have a vision of this huge, fully realized world. They're going for it because they want to make this game, and they'll do everything in their power to make it look and run good, but there will be compromises.

Your thread is just a round about way of saying "games will only look bad if the devs are lazy" and that's kinda BS. Game dev is a hugely complicated and difficult industry to be in, and what results in a game "looking bad" is never that simple.

 

[Interficium]

So, in summary, "lazy devs amirite guyz"

 

[RowdyReverb]

I would rephrase this. Hardware is at a point where the primary limitation is time and money, and to truly, truly maximize the potential of console hardware is too expensive to be feasible

 

[Aztechnology]

Well you're just wrong. And art, skill, time and time will always factor in to that equation.

 

[MillionIII]

As much as I like nier: automata, it's a terrible looking game. Only the characters look good.

 

[MrConbon210]

Hardware will always be a limiting factor and the determination of whether or not a game "looks good" is purely subjective and always will be. Also the creators vision is always limited by hardware. Do you think Cyberpunk 2077 is a game that's going to be graphically perfect? Trust me. It won't be. I bet the framerate will dip and if you look at stuff closely enough you'll find low res textures and low poly models for simple objects. Is that because the developers didn't try hard enough or sucked at their jobs? No! It's because they're developing on hardware that barely surpasses the specifications of a low end laptop from 2013, and at the same time they have a vision of this huge, fully realized world. They're going for it because they want to make this game, and they'll do everything in their power to make it look and run good, but there will be compromises.

Your thread is just a round about way of saying "games will only look bad if the devs are lazy" and that's kinda BS. Game dev is a hugely complicated and difficult industry to be in, and what results in a game "looking bad" is never that simple.

Click to shrink...

I believe the bigger limitation is money and time. The devs could get the framerate to be more stable but at the end of the day they need a product to be shipped out and can't spend years making sure every detail is perfect.

 

[Biske]

I agree, you gotta design your game around the hardware and really think about your art direction and look and what you can do with it.

 

[Jazzem]

FF3r is an odd example to cite, as that's a case of pleasing art direction (IMO) overcoming technical restraints...It holds up surprisingly well at a higher res too

 

[Jedi2016]

You have no idea how many workarounds and shortcuts they're using to get the games looking like they do. It's much more half-assed than people realize. That's why when people praise a particular game's visuals, they always say "Look at what X dev did with X hardware!"

 

[gordofredito]

TLDR: No more graphics like THIS:

Click to shrink...

I think that has more charm than a realistic game like Anthem. #FiteMe

 

[pixelation]

You can't really demand too much out of the Switch technically speaking. Art styles? Sure... But even Nintendo's first party offerings have IQ issues.

 

[BernardoOne]

4 heroes of light is one of the best looking DS games and looks great at higher resolutions too.

 

[Blu]

Low poly is an acceptable look for a game.

https://www.resetera.com/threads/your-favorite-low-poly-model.19950/

People like it.

 

[NCR Ranger]

I don't think it is accurate OP.

Even if we ignore artistic choices, some people might like the look of low poly games, budget and resources will play a role as well. With limited resources making the game hit your standards of "good looking" might take a back seat to other priorities.

 

[Serious Sam]

Graphics will always be held back by tech, budget and team size (hyper realism).

Also, low poly counts can be a successful atheistic choice (DUSK, Paratopic, etc).

Click to shrink...

You sure about that?

 

[Araujo]

TLDR: No more graphics like THIS:

Click to shrink...

 

[Elfotografoalocado]

Development time, middleware and the general scope of projects are the biggest limits in game development today. Simply put, there is no human way to author that much content and technology to make games with more fidelity, and oftentimes also no way to make the fidelity fun, even if the fidelity itself is achievable.

 

[NitX]

Nope

 

[Rizific]

Nope

Click to shrink...

Case closed.

 

[Laser Man]

Sure, shits easy as pie... hell, I could do it myself. Someone throw me a devkit, doesn't matter which one... I'll show them triple A's what's up!

(A game developer is not an artist, I mean there is overlap with lot's of them but they are still not the same inherently)

 

[Weeniekuns]

Its not just the hardware advances that push the pixels but better development tools (Unity) and 3rd party assets that make things easier

This is by a 1-man development team:

 

[ivb]

With or without limitations, the kind of graphics you want for your game matter as an artistic desition. So having limits is not that important if you can adapt that. In case you can't, then yes, money will be an issue. As in wanting to make a realistic game to better represent a concept rooted on reality.

 

[MikeProtagonist]

The hardware allows basically any level of fidelity. It's a matter of budget how much content you can actually put in there though. Anyone could build a super high poly lifelike model and have the hardware run it flawlessly with an off the shelf engine, but noone can make an open world game with the same fidelity because it all needs to be modelled at some point.

It's not like back in the 8-bit days when you needed crazy people turning every bit inside out to figure out the only way to have a 1Mhz processor actually render anything worthwhile.

 

[Fudgepuppy]

Not really.

When I was playing Spider-Man, I really wished they had a powerful enough platform to increase the density of the crowds.

Crowds are almost always sparse in games, and it really kills my immersion when I'm playing games that are supposed to take place in sprawling cities.

 

[Deleted member 35895]

You'd be surprised at how many tricks are used to achieve "graphical fidelity". Baked shadows, fake reflections and so on, we're still a long way from "the tech is here, press a button to get life-like graphics".

Art direction is still king. I'll take a game that uses its tech limitation as a tool to achieve and show off his own style with pride over a generic Unreal Engine "next-gen look" game any day.

Also, your screenshot is an upscaled version of a game that was meant to be viewed on a 3", 256x192 screen.

 

[bionic77]

You can always increase power and that gives you the devs the ability to do more things but in general I do agree that power of all platforms is enough great looking games.

 

[-JD-]

To what extent? What consitutes "good" "graphical fidelity"? What does that even mean? I'd say that no, there are still limits to what devs can achieve with lighting, reflections, and geometry that are completely hardware constrained. Some corners you can't cut and in certain situations will unavoidably be exposed to the viewer.

 

[Budi]

I think that has more charm than a realistic game like Anthem. #FiteMe

Click to shrink...

And the Last of Us?

 

[Equanimity]

Not at all. There's a reason why most big third party games don't come to the Switch.

I think you're confusing modern artstyle with graphics fedility.

 

[wubalubadubdub]

You're most definitely wrong. No aspect of game development is simple, and there are MANY limiting factors. To name a few; budget, time, scale, scope, and what is often overlooked, talent.

 

[RPGamer]

You can't really demand too much out of the Switch technically speaking. Art styles? Sure... But even Nintendo's first party offerings have IQ issues.

Click to shrink...

Sure, Xenoblade 2 for example would really profit from stronger hardware and it would make things easier for devs but you could argue that IQ problems exist because of short development times etc. too, for their first wave, as Xenoblade X on the weaker Wii U doesn't have that kind of IQ problem while having even bigger worlds. X had the full Monolithsoft team behind it and more time, Xenoblade 2 had under 40 MS employees and reused the X Wii U engine while puting more power in characters..... will be interesting to see their next game on switch. Same goes for Mario Odyssey and some other games, new Hardware and time constraints, i bet the next games will look better.

Obviously ports from PS4 and co will have downgrades in IQ either way, but i think it's possible to make beautiful exclusive 3D Switchgames if the hardware is in the right hands with enough time and money.

 

[Crossing Eden]

Graphics will always be held back by tech, budget and team size (hyper realism).

Also, low poly counts can be a successful atheistic choice (DUSK, Paratopic, etc).

Click to shrink...

Thank you

 

[Crossing Eden]

You sure about that?

Click to shrink...

Yes

 

[Aters]

lol what?

 

[Equanimity]

i think it's possible to make beautiful exclusive 3D Switchgames if the hardware is in the right hands with enough time and money.

Click to shrink...

There's no doubt about this. Luigi's Mansion 3 looks incredible, all things considered.

 

[Deleted member 2620]

OP thinks art grows on trees I guess

 

[Dogui]

Bravely Default existed in the same platform as Street Fighter IV and RE Revelations. Stuff like chibi models or low polygon graphics doesn't have this hardware power excuse a long time ago. They are just aesthetic choices, or budget choices, or both. Stuff like this will never disappear, we will have graphics like this forever.

"Graphical fidelity" was never the point of the example in the OP.